Most Harvey Flood Victims on Hook to Pay for Home Repairs

[Suppressed]

I pay a heck of a lot for insurance because I choose to live here.  My choice, my money.  What I DO NOT want is for the federal government to tax other people to subsidize my risk.

Then you're not paying enough. Taxpayers living in Nebraska are subsidizing you when you buy flood insurance. 

As long as we subsidize people like you, @InHeavenThereIsNoBeer, people will continue to get flooded out and costing the taxpayer.

Flood insurance subsidies need to end.  The Biggert-Waters Act will help, but when we consider that even the creation of FIRMs is a form of subsidy (remember, the insurance companies used to pay for Sanborn fire-risk mapping), then we realize there's still a lot of taxpayer money going into people choosing to live in risky areas.

[RoosGirl]

It discussed dynamic modeling.

Yeah, I don't really trust "global models".

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Then you're not paying enough. Taxpayers living in Nebraska are subsidizing you when you buy flood insurance. 

As long as we subsidize people like you, @InHeavenThereIsNoBeer, people will continue to get flooded out and costing the taxpayer.

Flood insurance subsidies need to end.  The Biggert-Waters Act will help, but when we consider that even the creation of FIRMs is a form of subsidy (remember, the insurance companies used to pay for Sanborn fire-risk mapping), then we realize there's still a lot of taxpayer money going into people choosing to live in risky areas.

I agree completely.  That was my point.  I don't want to be subsidized.  I want a free market to determine how much it costs for me to live where I want (or not).

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

In an unprecedented disaster like this one, it is where I expect the government to step in and give the taxpayer assistance, how many of the people affected didn't carry flood insurance because they weren't considered in a flood zone? I know that as soon as improvement were made that eliminated the flood zone my property was in I dropped flood insurance.

That should be backwards, frankly. We shouldn't subsidize people for building in flood zones and punish people for not building in flood zones.

Idiots who build in flood zones deserve financial ruin. Those that don't need support.

FEMA should only offer flood insurance to those that don't build in flood zones.

[Smokin Joe]

That should be backwards, frankly. We shouldn't subsidize people for building in flood zones and punish people for not building in flood zones.

Idiots who build in flood zones deserve financial ruin. Those that don't need support.

FEMA should only offer flood insurance to those that don't build in flood zones.

Let ordinary insurance companies offer the insurance. I am not for Federal (taxpayer) subsidy of constructing buildings where they are almost guaranteed to be wiped out (NC's Outer Banks, for example).
If people want to build where there are hazards, and the underwriters won't insure them, then they should do so at their own risk, or not at all. There is a reason beach cottages once were simple affairs and generally spartan, not McMansions on the sea.

For some, that inevitably will lead to a loss of real estate, home sites, or homes, but I can see insurers offering flood insurance--all they need are satellite or air photos of the neighborhoods as the water goes down, and they'll be able to map their risk zones.

[Suppressed]

I agree completely.  That was my point.  I don't want to be subsidized.  I want a free market to determine how much it costs for me to live where I want (or not).

..that's why we drink it here: